On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 04:02:30PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > Le 28/02/2022 à 16:29, Mark Brown a écrit : > > The binding looks good now but this is still driver specific code when > > it looks like it could easily be implemented in the core - like I said > > on the previous version you'd need to update drivers to advertise less > > than 8 bits but there's basically nothing driver specific I can see here > > so any driver using transfer_one() would get support that way. > Argh ! Sorry your comment to the previous version ended up in Junk > mails. I see it now. No problem. > We discussed that back in 2016 in > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20160824112701.GE22076@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > and my understanding at that time was that it was not something that > could be done at core level. > But maybe things have changed since then ? What I said then was "it would need a new core feature" which is what the binding does, I'm suggesting that you also do that for the handling of the implementation as well. Actually now I think about it perhaps this shouldn't be a binding at all but rather something specified by the client driver - presumably any system using an affected device is going to need these extra clock cycles so they'll all need to add the same property. > By the way, fsl-spi driver doesn't implement transfer_one() but > transfer_one_message() so it takes care of the chipselect changes and > therefore the final dummy transfer with CS off is to be done there as > far as I understand. > Would it mean changing fsl-spi driver to implement transfer_one() first ? Well, if it can implement transfer_one() without any negative consequences whichh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
